Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday August 09, 2012 @07:04AM
from the liar-liar dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Rogers Telecommunications is claiming that a ruling by Canada's Competition Bureau violates Rogers' freedom of speech. The company is in court over a 2010 ad campaign where it claimed that its discount brand 'Chatr' was more reliable and suffered fewer dropped calls than the competition. The Competition Bureau found 'no discernible difference in dropped-call rates between Rogers/Chatr and new entrants' and began legal proceedings against Rogers for violating Canada's Competition Act. The Bureau is seeking a $10 million (CDN) fine, an end to the ad campaign, and for Rogers to issue a corrective notice."

C.U. didn't establish the "corporations are people" thing, that was a much older case. C.U. just extended it to electioneering.

We still have laws against deceptive advertising, although of course those don't apply to politicians. I guess in Freem'Arkhet's ideal system (the anarchocapitalist "libertarian" utopia that I see people call for here) we'd allow the company to advertise whatever they want and the end consumer (invariably the lowest-information actor in the system) would have the responsibility to figure out what was and wasn't bullshit, but we aren't quite there yet.

To extend what AC said here, Corporate Personhood has a very long and sorted history in the U.S. It is considered a precedent by the court, but the way that it became a precedent was through a court clerk inserting a footnote. The history is important and it's something that people should know about. Wikipedia has a good reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood [wikipedia.org] and the books it references explain the history very well.

One thing is clear: the founders and never wanted corporations to have too much power. They had direct knowledge of companies with too much power did through their experiences with the East India Company.

"...One thing is clear: the founders and never wanted corporations to have too much power. They had direct knowledge of companies with too much power did through their experiences with the East India Company."

I think our Founding Fathers had more direct interaction with Hudson's Bay Company--probably the closest corporations and government can get to each other without one of them giving birth. In this case, that happened anyway and The United States of America was born.

Corporate Personhood (CP from here in) is essentially just another in the long line of Unintended Consequences.

Specifically the claim was made that the contract was with the corporation, not the individuals behind it, and since a corporation was not a person, it could not be sued. Thus when they failed to meet the contractual obligations (and get sued for breach) the person wronged was left without any method of redress. CP was a method of holding corporations accountable, and forcing them to fulfil contracts. It was actually fought by many corporations initially.

The problem with the idea that corporations are just "a means for people, a means of personal income" is that it complicates the other idea of taxing corporations. If corporations are not people in and of themselves, but are just extensions of other people, then when you tax the corporation on its profits and tax the shareholders on their dividends, you are essentially taxing the shareholders twice. This is one reason corporations have been relying more on stock buybacks over the last couple decades, in lie

Corporations are not people, they are just property that can own other property! The 13th amendment outlawed slavery, i.e. The buying and selling of people as property, so therefore if a corporation can be bought and sold then they are NOT a person!

Bullshit. They were very fearful of the power of corporations. There's a reason why most corporations back then required their charters to be approved by the state legislature, required them to be very specific in their goals, and, most importantly, require them to only be chartered for a limited period of time, usually no more than 20 years.

Yes, but those laws are easy to work around. Take the auto industry's past slogans:Chevy: like a rock! (damned thing won't start)Ford: quality is job#1! (they have their work cut out for them)Plymouth: we build excitement! (brakes, steering, and handling suck)

Notice that American advertisers seldom actually sell the product on its merits. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak."

Look at the Partnership for a Drug Free America. They formerly stated flat out that marijuana causes cancer until a study proved that not only does it not cause cancer, but prevents cancer in tobacco smokers. So they changed it to "marijuana contains carcinogens" which the average person who hasn't heard of the study will take to mean "marijuana causes cancer." Why note that a substance contains carcinogens when it's been proven not to cause cancer?

I guess in Freem'Arkhet's ideal system (the anarchocapitalist "libertarian" utopia that I see people call for here) we'd allow the company to advertise whatever they want and the end consumer (invariably the lowest-information actor in the system) would have the responsibility to figure out what was and wasn't bullshit, but we aren't quite there yet.

This has zero to do with Citizens United, and you're right: not only are the parallels not "quite right": they're utterly wrong.

That said, the concept of "corporate personhood" in the US isn't a new construct, and didn't start with Citizens United. US case law has treated corporations as "persons" for purposes of suing and being sued since the 1800s. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce c

This is genius! If corporations are people in the US, and churches are tax-exempt, and according to what James Randi says the religious lobby in the US is so strong that not even the IRS will go after churches, what's to stop a corporation's officers from declaring itself the head of a church--in its role as "corporate person"--and then carrying all of its economic activity out under the untaxed, unscrutinized auspices of that church?

For ths US, truth is advertising is required of commercial ads, but not of political campaigns. Both are speech. But the politcal ads are "political speech" and protected by the 1st amendment as protected speech, including lies and falsehoods. The commercial ads, while "speech", are intended to facilitate the transfer of goods or services for money, and thus are not protected speech because preventing someone from lying to a potential customer to make a sale is seen as the bigger benefit to society than pro

FOX News had won the 'right' to knowingly lie in news broadcasts. The court case involved reporters who were told to lie about rBGH hormone in the production of milk; when they refused to lie on Monsanto's behalf, they were fired.

The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement.

I would disagree. It is perfectly acceptable for people to choose to not associate with or do business with people whose speech they find offensive. So, one consequence of "offensive" speech is that some people will choose not to do business with you. Carbonite has discovered this effect. They publicly stated that they were choosing to not do business with someone who said something they found offensive about someone who supported the same political positions as their CEO (even though they continue to do bu

I make a distinction between "offensive" and "deceptive" and I'm hoping PP does as well. When I say something I cannot know for sure if it will or won't offend you. If I tell you something that I know isn't true that is deceptive whether you are offended by it or not.

So if a guy walks up to a woman and tells her "You have a really nice [insert female body part of choice]" she may or may not get offended depending on her sensibilities but if he walks up to her and says "My unit is two feet long and as wid

Depends on what the "offense" is. Is it just an unpopular opinion? Then yes, you are right. Is it a company flat out lying about their service or product? There damn well had better be some real consequences for that.

I thought the founding of Chatr, the 2nd subsidiary of Rogers, located only in major metropolises where Wind Mobile & Mobilicity operated was an anti-competitive "crime".

They'd had years of operation prior in which they could've set up such a company, or better yet offered better prices, but no - wait until there's some real competition then try to steal their potential customers (I say steal because they noticeably did not use the Rogers name as so many people are / were disgusted with them and looking for someone else to do business with).

Anyway, fuck Rogers, as soon as 35.5 months of my 36 month contract were up, I ported to Wind (Rogers tried to charge me early termination even though I was paying for that 36th month - I refused to pay).

Now I get unlimited North America wide talk, unlimited global SMS, voice mail, call display, conference calling, and unlimited internet (throttled after 5 Gb/m) with tethering... for $40/m. Yeah, fuck you Rogers. (And no, I have no affiliation with Wind other than customer.)

When I switched from them to Koodo (subsidiary of Telus, working on the Bell/Telus network), they charged me $400 because they'd gone and renewed my contract without telling me... they refused to refund it, so I cancelled my television/internet and homephone with them as well. They called me up and asked what it would take to get me back as a customer, I told them that their mobility department had screwed the pooch, and that I would get an Inmarsat connection before I ever got Rogers again. they were unamu

Therefore, the government’s position appears contradictory. If indeed naturopaths offer “safe and effective” treatment, then why wouldn’t they be covered? However, if these services do not meet the evidentiary standard laid out by our health-care system, then why is the government giving what surely amounts to tacit approval of naturopathy?

Greetings and Salutations;
I have to point out that "freedom of speech" is not absolute. It does not absolve the speaker from having to take responsibility for their words, nor, is it license to lie without consequences. This has been ruled upon a number of times by the Supreme Court here in the US. I have to say that this is one area where I agree with the Justices (although there are plenty of other areas where we disagree). The way that truth in advertising has become as rare as an Emu these days is a terrible thing and should not be tolerated. If your marketing people are so incompetent that lying about one's competition is the only way they can find a way to show that your company is a better choice, either you need to hire better people, or, admit that they have a point, and, shut down your company, since it obviously is worthless.
Pleasant dreams.
Dave Mundt

Lying is part of freedom of speech. However, there are degrees of lying as well. If your lies result in damages or the potential to do harm, there are limitations on that (e.g., shouting Fire in a theatre, slander, libel). A falsehood or omission of fact where the recipient merely gets the wrong picture is allowed, as are little white lies.

(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into websites from work...)

Dear Rogers, Canada doesn't have Freedom of Speech. That's an American thing (one of the things that I think America got right where Canada got wrong). Using "freedom of speech" as your defence for lying shows you're not only liars, but you're stupid too. Enjoy your $10 million fine.

(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into websites from work...)

Dear Rogers, Canada doesn't have Freedom of Speech.

Ahem.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...2. Everyone* has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.

*It's that word that allows corporations to enjoy these freedoms as well as natural humans.

These freedoms (and all the others) are all modified slightly by clause 1 of the Charter:

Interestingly, the Charter applies to people, not corporations, and there's no definition of corporation as a legal person in relation to the charter in Canadian law. So I'm not entirely clear how Roger's intends to argue this.

Some clauses of the Charter apply to corporations, as well as people. Clause 2b definitely applies to corporations. See Irwin Toy v. Quebec [lexum.org] in which a Toy company sought to have laws regulating advertising directed at children under 13 struck for unconstitutionality. 5 Justices of the SCC agreed that "commercial speech" (in this case, advertising from a corporation) was protected. They split on whether the government's regs were justified in a free and democratic society (3-2 in favour of the government).

so maybe we need to more forcefully commit to the notion that a corporation is NOT a person and does NOT deserve the same protections

in the USA, anonymous trolls lying and making shit up is analogous to corporations and rich people committing secret soft money to untraceable political actions. when will we have our first scandal where Chinese money tinkers with American politics in this way? so why exactly is it allowed that rich people and corporations

Slander and libel are both illegal. They have both been illegal for a very long time going back to British laws. The one difference is that truth is considered a defense in the U.S. while in the U.K. it can still be considered irrelevant.

The one difference is that truth is considered a defense in the U.S. while in the U.K. it can still be considered irrelevant.

The main difference there is that something being true doesn't mean that you have a right to say it; certain parts of the truth are still unreasonable and harmful to say. Something being the truth does shift the onus much more strongly towards the plaintiff to show that it shouldn't have been said though. It doesn't come up very often, to be honest.

A person can lie and that is protected speech. However, a person cannot commit fraud by telling someone that they will provide them with a service and then no provide that service. In this case, Rogers was offering the service of being "more reliable and suffering fewer dropped calls" than their competition. They failed to deliver this service. That means they were committing fraud. In this case the government is calling that fraud "deceptive advertising".

There is a difference between fraud (lies used to gain a sale) and free speech. Whether this specific instance counts as fraud is questionable (every business is going to say their product is the "best" and every consumer knows, or should know that).

While I can accept that freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie, it includes the duty to accept the consequences of lying.

So I would say that anybody who made a purchase based on a premeditated lie should be able to request not only a refund of anything paid but punitive damages. It should refund all customers who bought the lied about product, say, three times the amount they paid plus allowance for disruption and time wasted.

They are absolutely right. Free speech rights should allow them to tell any lies, misleading stories, and so on. On the other hand, consumer protection requires them to follow their free-speech-right guaranteed lies by factually correct statements.

Like: The cheque is in the post. No, it isn't, and you would be stupid if you believe it. Our network is the best in the country. No, it isn't. Our own numbers prove that it is the worst.

...or does this not seem like the perfect opportunity for the competition to hoist Rogers by their own petard? I mean really - free speech? Then what's to stop me from telling the world about how Rogers phones emit a high powered form of ionizing radiation that causes impotence in males? That Rogers internet service will infect your computer with malware. That Alan Horn (Chairman) is an accused paedophile and that Nadir Mohammed (CEO) is terrorist?

Rogers is the epitome of crass, lying corporate greed. Day by day, in every way, they drive their customers away, unless they are your monopoly provider - feel the screw, see your life's blood drain away.They are the corporate equivalent of King George, who so enraged the 13 original colonies that they felt compelled to invite him to tea.

Now, That's a good idea - immerse Rogers in boiling water - but drink nothing...

1) King George (III) did not mandate taxes in the colonies, the monarchy was already a pretty powerless figurehead, Parliament mandated the taxes

2) The tax changes that caused the Boston Tea Party were a subsidy paid to the East India Company...this meant that the price of Tea was lower, and the Tea thrown into the Sea was cheap tea that would have flooded the market and made the Luxury commodity of Tea suddenly very cheap, the only people who would lose out were Tea Smugglers, and Non East India company merchants

The real thing most of the 13 colonies were complaining about was taxation (at all) without representation - Not any particular tax, this tax change was just the flashpoint

The other thing that King George did was declare that all his subjects were equal including the North American Natives and that the American colonists were to stop stealing their land and expanding to the east.As a good number of the founding fathers were land speculators, and common people wanted their own land, this was a large motivation for the revolt.Another motivation that isn't talked about much was the capture of Quebec in IIRC 1763 and subsequently the expanding of rights for Roman Catholics including allowing them in government. England had been very anti-Catholic, the Bill of Rights of 1689 only allowed non-Catholics to bear arms and it still illegal for the Royal Family to marry a Catholic.

Yes and no. Yes, Parliament was primarily responsible for the taxes, but the King at the time did have significant sway over national policy, including appointing Prime Ministers that didn't always have the support of Parliament. Even now, Elizabeth II has some sway over the government, and could in theory refuse to allow a bill that has passed Parliament from becoming law.

"Telco" means TELephone COmpany, so the headline starts, "Telephone Company Company...". At least the summary doesn't mention "ATM machines" or "PIN numbers".
Is it just me, or has the quality of writing on/. fallen off a cliff lately?

Lately? It happened quite a while ago. Not to worry, there are even worse abominations such as "Personal PIN Numbers" lurking in the future.

I almost couldn't believe it myself when I saw your post on my liquid-crystal LCD display. But if you have a moment, this short educational, informative public service PSA announcement from the Unabridged and Expanded Redundant Department of Redundancy Department might change your mind about "personal PIN number."

One, people can have more than one PIN. Personally, I've had a personal PIN, a work PIN, and during an ill-fated experiment a few years ago, an entrepreneurial PIN. If I were to go around talking a

That statement seems true, unless you are claiming he never lost his health benefits or lost them prior to the steel plant closing. Last I checked 2003 is after 2001. So true in the literal sense.

Also true in the impression it is trying to leave, if the plant hadn't closed he would still have health benefits after his wife left her job. So the lack of health benefits is due to two factors, of which the ad only cares about one.

If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services â" even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.Many states nowâ¦require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under [our] plan, there would be such a requirementâ¦Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.

Is this Marx? Oh, wait, no: it's the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research institute, in '89. 23 years later and the same plan is suddenly "Marxist".

You know I am pretty sure the one who wants to take from the common people and give to the tax collectors and other government officials is Obama, not Romney. Robin Hood took from tax collectors and other government officials and gave to the common people. The only reason that it was accurate to say that Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" was because if you were not a government official, you were not rich, you were poor. Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the taxpayer becau

And who exactly do we vote for? A piece of shit rich elitist who's only concern is making rich people richer at the expense of people like me? Or a 'know it all' douchebag who wants to spend all my money on shit I don't want or need?

I've voted straight libertarian for years. I honestly don't know or care about their message or ideals, I just want to vote, yet I don't want to be responsible for electing people from political parties who's only concern is taking my money or taking away my rights. Honestly, my

And while Obama's accomplishments are definitely disappointing, Romney is far worse. He embodies everything that's wrong with the economy, and he's the ultimate flip flopper. No idea what he's really going to do, because there's no way we can believe anything he says. We do know he intends to subsidize the rich and tax the middle class, whereas Obama wants to do the reverse. If you want to fix the economy, then Romney is easily the worst guy

Except no one has actually given me any pure facts (not political facts) as to how Romney will help me and fix my issues. All I really have is what I can read about him, and what I read about him looks really bad for someone like me. I see republican (not really a fan), big corp (not really a fan), anti middle class (not really a fan), anti-gay marriage (bigot), anti-personal freedom, anti-woman's rights, so rich he's unconnected to the common man (not really a fan), no skills as a diplomat (not really a fa

They don't have any freedom of speech rights specified in their constitution.

Bullshit. About twenty seconds of Googling would have uncovered this section [justice.gc.ca] of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Is there a hospital in the United States that turns away a patient. No, it is against the law.

They are required under EMTALA to provide "emergency" care. Outside a few oncological emergencies there are very few cancer related things that will get you treated in the emergency room. You will not get chemotherapy, likely, if you don't have insurance unless you can convince the hospital to give you some charity care.

The word "man" is not used in the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms. The terms "citizen", "person," "individual" and "everyone" are used. Each of these terms is supposed to be distinguishable from the others (though I'm not sure whether there's a difference between "individual" and "person" or whether that question's been litigated). Freedom of speech in Canada is guaranteed to "everyone" which means that Corporations are included, with limitations.